A Muslim Ban Is Logical, Moral, And Even Libertarian

[CaptUSA]

Obvious, politically a bad idea.

Or maybe he realizes how absurd it is to suggest someone might be dangerous to you just because he shares a religion with people who happen to be getting bombed relentlessly by our government?

Because there are about a billion Muslims and only a small percentage are from the Middle East? Or because the vast vast majority of Muslims have never been violent in their lives? Or because he’s not an idiot?

 

[ClaytonB]

I do not believe that most Muslims believe that those are rules for government- that were written over 1000 years ago- any more than most Christians believe that Moses's rules are for today's government.

"You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you." - Deuteronomy 7:16

Orrrr... maybe the neocons really do believe this rule is still active today... judging from their penchant for dropping bombs on people who are half a globe away...

 

[nikcers]

You should listen closely to what he is saying here without saying Muslim.

TWEET/VIDEO: Paul: "Maybe we should stop certain countries from sending people here for awhile. It's not like you have a right to move to our country."

You should listen to everything he is saying, not just what you want to hear.

I've been saying all along that our first defense and our best defense is at our borders who travels to visit us and who travels to live here, you know I think we need more extensive screening I like the idea that Trump is talking about that people should come to our country based on merit but also based on allegiance that you have to have allegiance to the things we believe in, and I think we should extensively question people do you believe in freedom of religion do you believe that anybody should be able to practice openly their religion are you tolerant of other peoples religion will you pledge allegiance to our flag and to our country if you come here. -Rand Paul

 

[GunnyFreedom]

she didn't say immigration was the problem. you did.

Not to mention he just used sophistry to argue that opposing a Muslim ban was the same thing as advocating for completely open borders. This kind of disingenuous and dishonest manipulation is beyond disgusting, and continues to reaffirm my earlier assessment of his character.

 

[kahless]

Not to mention he just used sophistry to argue that opposing a Muslim ban was the same thing as advocating for completely open borders. This kind of disingenuous and dishonest manipulation is beyond disgusting, and continues to reaffirm my earlier assessment of his character.

Prove it, since it is simply not true. Show me the quote. It is well known fact in this forum there are many here that do not believe in any immigration controls and are for open borders.

The quotes below say allot about your character. You should apologize to the voters in your district and in this forum for your attempts at using their own religion against them for political purposes. That was pretty low.

Any "Christian" who supports Trump is not a Christian. Trump is an antichrist, and for anyone who claims Christ to support an antichrist requires that they be under the delusion sent by God. Anybody who is under the delusion sent by God is not a Christian. Therefore, any "Christian" who supports Trump is not a Christian.

It gets worse, just following that quote he admits to painting American Evangelicals with a broad brush.

All one has to do in order to understand why American Evangelicals would like and support Trump is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, with a particular emphasis on verse 11. As an old school Reformed Presbyterian, my position is that this particular chapter is dealing with the issue of false prophets, particularly the Papacy, but not limited to it. Heresy bring delusion, and the delusion is the consequence of God's condemnation of wicked people.

American Evangelicals are, generally speaking, idolaters and have been made stupid by their idols, namely their worship of American Patriotism and the atheistic nation-state of Israel.

No joke, this is my go-to verse when discussing people who support Trump.

 

[kahless]

You should listen to everything he is saying, not just what you want to hear.

Some do not believe in any immigration controls which was the point of posting it. I listened to it and agree with it. I had started a transcript but never finished, +1 for posting the transcript.

 

[Ender]

Prove it, since it is simply not true. Show me the quote. It is well known fact in this forum there are many here that do not believe in any immigration controls and are for open borders.

The quotes below say allot about your character. You should apologize to the voters in your district and in this forum for your attempts at using their own religion against them for political purposes. That was pretty low.



It gets worse, just following that quote he admits to painting American Evangelicals with a broad brush.

You just painted all Muslims with the same broad brush that you accuse [MENTION=8481]GunnyFreedom[/MENTION] of- and anyone who opposes you gets painted by your "you must be a Muslim" brush.

 

[juleswin]

The funny thing is that if this website followed the philosophy of the OP and the thread starter, this sort of statist ideology would be closed off to people on this website. But here we are with this statist user freely promoting his statist ideology on this site

 

[nikcers]

Some do not believe in any immigration controls which was the point of posting it. I listened to it and agree with it. I had started a transcript but never finished, +1 for posting the transcript.

It sort of begs the question on who decides the controls though, what the controls are based on. I think any controls should be specific. Like if we are going to be at war with 7+ countries, we should declare war and ban immigration from those countries until war with those countries is over.

If we are going to be at war around the world, end all immigration that's the only way to keep us safe, I don't advocate for the war, but I also don't advocate for people to exact revenge against my government against me by coming here and committing acts of terror, that's the neocon straw man argument.

I don't think anyone intellectually honest thinks this is a matter of immigration but a matter of foreign policy and I will not justify changing our countries values because we can't control our own military industrial complex that creates the blow back.

Groups of people don't have special rights, where does it stop. If we begin war with China are we going to start detaining them without trial and banning Chinese people from immigrating legally? If you just want to only let certain people in just be honest about your position and say you only want to let certain people in, but this is about foreign policy this is about Trumps continued war in the middle east.

 

[kahless]

It sort of begs the question on who decides the controls though, what the controls are based on. I think any controls should be specific. Like if we are going to be at war with 7+ countries, we should declare war and ban immigration from those countries until war with those countries is over.

If we are going to be at war around the world, end all immigration that's the only way to keep us safe, I don't advocate for the war, but I also don't advocate for people to exact revenge against my government against me by coming here and committing acts of terror, that's the neocon straw man argument.

I don't think anyone intellectually honest thinks this is a matter of immigration but a matter of foreign policy and I will not justify changing our countries values because we can't control our own military industrial complex that creates the blow back.

Groups of people don't have special rights, where does it stop. If we begin war with China are we going to start detaining them without trial and banning Chinese people from immigrating legally? If you just want to only let certain people in just be honest about your position and say you only want to let certain people in, but this is about foreign policy this is about Trumps continued war in the middle east.

Good points. The other aspect of this is diversity historically has never really worked and nation states that have followed that path ended up breaking up into tribal factions fighting one another.

The majority of US history there have been limits on immigration to limit diversity for peace and social cohesion. I do not believe continuing on that earlier path would be changing our countries values but rather preserve them as the diverse population we have not assimilates into America values, i.e the Constitution.

 

[kahless]

The funny thing is that if this website followed the philosophy of the OP and the thread starter, this sort of statist ideology would be closed off to people on this website. But here we are with this statist user freely promoting his statist ideology on this site

Eye rolls from a Che Guervra supporter I wear with a badge of honor.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Thinking out of the box to tackle this complicated muslim refugees/population invasion issue... how about muslims refugees from Iraq, Syria, Benghazi or other lands where US militant freedom projects have been heavily active be placed as next door neighbors to every American who supported Iraq freedom racial revenge attack that was based on lies and unleashed major wave of mideast displacements/massive migrations? Of cousre after making sure the incoming refugees from war zones are vetted and are moderate Islamists.

Is the ongoing Surge of Police State in America a Surge of Karma?
Ongoing Surge of Police State in America has any relation to 80% of Americans supporting invasion of Iraq based on lies and then electing another dubious politician who surged war policies that resulted in surge of civilian deaths/raids on homes of people occupied with funding from American taxpayers?




Kahless, btw do you see Obama as first Muslim President of US?






Semi-Related

Hands up, Don't shoot

 

[kahless]

You just painted all Muslims with the same broad brush that you accuse GunnyFreedom of- and anyone who opposes you gets painted by your "you must be a Muslim" brush.

The difference here is I backed his up with quotes proving it. In your case, again, I said this to you every time you accuse me it of that it was not an accusation but rather put as a question. Now it is a belief and here is how I backed it up.

Like some others you discuss the issue somewhat in this manner below.

1. Focus and blame US intervention 100% of the time.

2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed. You direct the conversation back to #1.

3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what you believe from #1. You refocus the conversation back on #1.

4. No mention or concern for US victims or potential US victims. When it is brought up it always goes right back to #1 and/or the victims of #1.

5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion and in some cases you make a moral equivalence to modern Christianity for which there is no Christian terrorism on the scale of radical Islam. Conversation is redirected back to #1.

6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state. Conversation is refocused back to #1.

7. If someone points out that #1 is not entirely the issue and raises issues 2 to 6, they are immediately slammed as full of "hate", fearful, a Trump supporter as an epithet , demeaned in some manner or some other personal attack.

No reasonable individual would discuss the issue in this manner unless they are a Muslim political activist.

 

[kahless]

Thinking out of the box to tackle this complicated muslim refugees/population invasion issue... how about muslims refugees from Iraq, Syria, Benghazi or other lands where US militant freedom projects have been heavily active be placed as next door neighbors to every American who supported Iraq freedom racial revenge attack that was based on lies and unleashed major wave of mideast displacements/massive migrations? Of cousre after making sure the incoming refugees from war zones are vetted and are moderate Islamists.

Is the ongoing Surge of Police State in America a Surge of Karma?
Ongoing Surge of Police State in America has any relation to 80% of Americans supporting invasion of Iraq based on lies and then electing another dubious politician who surged war policies that resulted in surge of civilian deaths/raids on homes of people occupied with funding from American taxpayers?

Kahless, btw do you see Obama as first Muslim President of US?

It was how he was raised. It was obvious he was no fan of Christians while in office and his beliefs are responsible for further destabilizing the Middle East in favor of radical Islam.

 

[Raginfridus]

Tourism too. Still don't trust those sneaky Japs. Don't even get me started on those car-bombing Micks.

Last time we let the gooks in, they took our jobs.

The solution is obvious: withdraw from the Middle East. That means ALL "rebuilding" money and armaments deals with every country in the region. All deniable and black ops stop. All troops and ships returned to their stateside division (or however that works). 6 all of it. Then trim the agencies and military. Review past contracts for all malfecience. Pardon every MIC criminal who accepts the walk of shame. Pulverize every one that bitches and refuses their one opportunity to leave their agency/dept chair in shame with exactly nothing. Then talk about more stringent immigration bans, or dissolving the CIA completely - whichever's the cause of "homegrown" terror. Otherwise homicidal Muslims will deny their faith for their cause and use fake visas and passports from friendly nations to accomplish murder in the states. Nothing at all will change here or abroad.

 

[Ender]

The difference here is I backed his up with quotes proving it. In your case, again, I said this to you every time you accuse me it of that it was not an accusation but rather put as a question. Now it is a belief and here is how I backed it up.

Like some others you discuss the issue somewhat in this manner below.

1. Focus and blame US intervention 100% of the time.

2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed. You direct the conversation back to #1.

3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what you believe from #1. You refocus the conversation back on #1.

4. No mention or concern for US victims or potential US victims. When it is brought up it always goes right back to #1 and/or the victims of #1.

5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion and in some cases you make a moral equivalence to modern Christianity for which there is no Christian terrorism on the scale of radical Islam. Conversation is redirected back to #1.

6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state. Conversation is refocused back to #1.

7. If someone points out that #1 is not entirely the issue and raises issues 2 to 6, they are immediately slammed as full of "hate", fearful, a Trump supporter as an epithet , demeaned in some manner or some other personal attack.

No reasonable individual would discuss the issue in this matter unless they are a Muslim political activist.

UH.... you are really pulling the BS strings big time now.

You have absolutely NO argument for your Muslim hate so you ALWAYS back it up with calling anyone who challenges you, a Muslim.

And all your little numbers have never been brought up.

I stand with Ron Paul.

1. Get OUT of the ME and unconstitutional wars.
2. Help countries we have destroyed.
3. Get the alphabets out of the terrorism business.
4. Again, #3, and absolutely no Minority Report allowed.
5. Absolutely no worship of your god, the state.
6. Get rid of entitlements.

Here are a few of RP's tweets over Trump's ridiculous Aug Afghan speech:

Planned in Afghanistan? What about Saudi Arabia??
What's wrong with rapid exit? We just marched in we can just march out.
So far very discouraging. Sounds like pure neocon foreign policy.
The promoters of war win. The American people lose. #Afghanistan
Remember: there was no al-Qaeda until our foolish invasion of Iraq based on neocon lies.
The American people deserve to know when we are going to war and MUST give you permission through their representatives in Congress!
Emphasis on Pakistan just means the war going to be expanded!
Emphasis on military alliance with India may well lead to more vicious war between nuclear states Pakistan and India. Smart?
Terrorism is one thing, but what about massive collateral damage? Killing civilians creates more terrorism. Round and round we go.
Shorter Trump: "Afghanistan: give us your minerals!"
Nothing new. More of the same. Obama was wrong. This is NOT the good war. Sooner we get out the better.
More killing is not the road to peace.
The emphasis on the "grave danger" of terrorism is greatly exaggerated. But more intervention surely creates more terrorism.
How many Americans are really sitting around worrying about an Afghan terrorist coming over and killing them?
So many of our problems are self-inflicted by a deeply flawed foreign policy. US troops - and the family members - suffer the consequences.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-21/angry-tweetstorm-ron-paul-lashes-out-neocon-trump

 

[kahless]

UH.... you are really pulling the BS strings big time now.

You have absolutely NO argument for your Muslim hate so you ALWAYS back it up with calling anyone who challenges you, a Muslim.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! You just responded exactly how I posted you would respond when you could have addressed these point by point.

You again:

Like some others you discuss the issue somewhat in this manner below.

1. Focus and blame US intervention 100% of the time.

2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed. You direct the conversation back to #1.

3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what you believe from #1. You refocus the conversation back on #1.

4. No mention or concern for US victims or potential US victims. When it is brought up it always goes right back to #1 and/or the victims of #1.

5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion and in some cases you make a moral equivalence to modern Christianity for which there is no Christian terrorism on the scale of radical Islam. Conversation is redirected back to #1.

6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state. Conversation is refocused back to #1.

7. If someone points out that #1 is not entirely the issue and raises issues 2 to 6, they are immediately slammed as full of "hate", fearful, a Trump supporter as an epithet , demeaned in some manner or some other personal attack.

No reasonable individual would discuss the issue in this manner unless they are a Muslim political activist.

 

[afwjam]

If that is the case, why did Ron Paul introduce legislation to limit immigration from the Middle East every session then?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr488

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr3217

Saudi Arabia? That’s where you want to ban immigrants from, kinda makes sense, but Is that what trump is doing or on offer from any neocon? I think Ron Paul was trying to highlight the hipocracy of our relations with the saudis, remember the hijackers came in from Saudi Arabia on student visas. I think there would be simpler ways to deal with the Saudi’s, or not deal with them...

 

[Ender]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! You just responded exactly how I posted you would respond when you could have addressed these point by point.

You again:

You'd make a great politician- everything that comes out of your mouth is made-up or an outright lie.

My response again:

I stand with Ron Paul.

1. Get OUT of the ME and unconstitutional wars.
2. Help countries we have destroyed.
3. Get the alphabets out of the terrorism business.
4. Again, #3, and absolutely no Minority Report allowed.
5. Absolutely no worship of your god, the state.
6. Get rid of entitlements.

 

[kahless]

You'd make a great politician- everything that comes out of your mouth is made-up or an outright lie.

My response again:

Those are not the points I posted. Here again is how you reply to this topic below. You could very well address each one of these points to put it to rest. I even added some room so you can reply and refute it if you believe anything I posted here is a lie.

You again:

Like some others you discuss the issue somewhat in this manner below.

1. Focus and blame US intervention 100% of the time.


2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed. You direct the conversation back to #1.


3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what you believe from #1. You refocus the conversation back on #1.


4. No mention or concern for US victims or potential US victims. When it is brought up it always goes right back to #1 and/or the victims of #1.


5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion and in some cases you make a moral equivalence to modern Christianity for which there is no Christian terrorism on the scale of radical Islam. Conversation is redirected back to #1.

6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state. Conversation is refocused back to #1.


7. If someone points out that #1 is not entirely the issue and raises issues 2 to 6, they are immediately slammed as full of "hate", fearful, a Trump supporter as an epithet , demeaned in some manner or some other personal attack.


No reasonable individual would discuss the issue in this matter unless they are a Muslim political activist.

EDIT: okay you at least addressed #6.